Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

Not just terrorist/militants, but civilians as well.

Blame Hamas et al for hiding/operating among civilians.

What stops the IDF from announcing its cancellation of the safe zone designation? Come on, instead of deflecting from the issue by appealing to expediency, answer the question.

Why don't you answer this question instead: why do you fault Israel for not "canceling" a zone that is still relatively safe rather than blaming Hamas and other terrorist group for violating it?

 

[Derec]

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.

A gif in the wiki article about the strike in question (that he posted, mind you) clearly shows a secondary explosion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's a Javelin, the time machine is going to yeet you to Braunau am Inn at midnight of April 20, 1889 but the link can't be maintained, you snap back in 30 seconds. What do you do in those 30 seconds?

Do I retain the memory of who that baby would become? Think about that question, Loren, it's important.

So it's your perception of what you did vs the actual outcome?

I'm not answering your hypothetical scenario. My concern is that you are justifying the deaths of individuals based on a perceived, non-imminent threat. While Hamas combatants pose a clear and immediate danger, the same cannot be said for Palestinian civilians, especially children. Your argument seems to imply that these children are destined to become future Hitlers, which you use to rationalize the kind of decision you'd entertain in a time-travel scenario. Why else would you ask if I’d kill the infant, in what appears to be an attempt to persuade me to support the killing of Palestinian children?

We apply the imminent threat standard because you're expected to go to the police otherwise. Neither the police nor nations work on that basis, though, because there's nobody to go to.

As for the scenario--I was simply presenting a situation where killing one would save millions. And, as always happens, the hard question is not answered.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here are two latest bombings (there are more)
 September_2024_Al-Mawasi_refugee_camp_attack

There is far less info about this strike than about the July strike below. Still, it seems that there were Hamas fighters that were targeted there.

 13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack

This was an attack that successfully targeted Mohammed Deif, the second-in-command of Al-Qassam-Brigades (the "military" wing of Hamas), and the commander of the Khan Yunis brigade Rafa Salama (making his rank equivalent of a one star general). Note that the death toll is given by Hamas and is not independently verified, and it furthermore does not differentiate between combatants and civilians. Not even a gender or adult/minor breakdown is provided.
Hamas Health Ministry has largely stopped providing demographic breakdowns of the casualties of airstrikes because they show that they are targeting militants. For example, the Tal-el-Sultan attack in Rafah in May, as reported had 23 "women, children and elderly" among 45 fatalities. That means that 22, almost half, were non-elderly adult men. But that demographic is less than 1/4 of the population (half are under 18, half of the rest are women, and then you have to subtract a couple of percent for the "elderly"), making them overrepresented by a factor of 2! That is highly unlikely if it wasn't a strike on militants. Note also that "children" refers to <18s, and Hamas and other terror groups routinely recruit minor teenagers. So not even all of those designated as "children" are civilians.

Note also the secondary explosion that indicates that there were weapons or explosives stored at the site that was hit.

Thank you. Note two things about that blast:

1) The initial blast is going upwards. It's obviously hard to tell but it certainly looks like everything around is pretty much unaffected by the blast. This looks like a typical Israeli below ground level detonation.

2) The secondary in the bottom left occurs above ground and would be far more destructive but it produces enough smoke we can't tell.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no idea if a deal could have been arranged nor what might have entailed if it had materialized. Neither do you. But since you invoke history, it is pretty clear from history that Hamas takes hostages in order to make prisoner swaps.

My point was that if a prisoner swap had been done, some of the death and destruction would likely have been avoided. Nothing in your response rebuts that.

The last prisoner swap ended up killing a lot more Israelis than the prisoners they got back. Thus it was a very bad deal for Israel--so of course the world is trying to cram it down their throat.

The only entity cramming anything down anyone’s throats is you with your straw men.

Nothing you have written rebut the observation that an exchange would have likely avoided the massive destruction and death of the IDF’s war.

You are the one claiming things will be different than historical precedent.

Yet another straw man.

Calling it a straw man doesn't make it so. You are making an assertion that things would be very different than in the past …

No I am not, which is what makes it a straw man.

Yes, you are.

I'm pointing out that the last swap resulted in more dead Israelis than recovered Israelis. A bunch of the people from the swap were part of 10/7.

Why would a swap now not have that same outcome? What's different?

Nothing is different, you behave as if Gazans don’t count at all.

Nothing is different, but you are saying it would have a different outcome. You realize that's one of the definitions of insanity?

Not saying that at all. IMO, if there were a hostage swap instead of an invasion, there would be less death and destruction overall.

What you're missing is that the prisoner swap lead to an invasion.

And I'm not saying the Gazans don't count. I'm saying that you're arguing for Gazan civilian lives to be used as a weapon.

I don't understand where you get these idiotic and slanderous interpretations of yours. Perhaps it is to deflect from you underlying sociopathic defense of slaughtering of civilians as the only conceivable course of action by the IDF?

You refuse to consider what's going on. When you say "don't hit because of human shields" you have recognized them as a weapon. A weapon that functions by dying. And the more you reward something the more you see of it.

 

[Gospel]

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

Just because you believe that criticizing Israeli policy weakens Israel doesn't make it true. There's your problem.

Once again, you're not even addressing it.

What is *it"?.

 

[laughing dog]

What you're missing is that the prisoner swap lead to an invasion.

Because some of released prisoners participated? LOL

You refuse to consider what's going on. When you say "don't hit because of human shields" you have recognized them as a weapon. A weapon that functions by dying. And the more you reward something the more you see of it.

Ignoring your straw man about don’t hit, perhaps if I got drunk your response would make sense.[/QUOTE]

 

[laughing dog]

Not just terrorist/militants, but civilians as well.

Blame Hamas et al for hiding/operating among civilians.

What stops the IDF from announcing its cancellation of the safe zone designation? Come on, instead of deflecting from the issue by appealing to expediency, answer the question.

Why don't you answer this question instead: why do you fault Israel for not "canceling" a zone that is still relatively safe rather than blaming Hamas and other terrorist group for violating it?

More deflection.

From your response, I see you tacitly approve of deception on the basis of expediency.

 

[Gospel]

Here's a Javelin, the time machine is going to yeet you to Braunau am Inn at midnight of April 20, 1889 but the link can't be maintained, you snap back in 30 seconds. What do you do in those 30 seconds?

Do I retain the memory of who that baby would become? Think about that question, Loren, it's important.

So it's your perception of what you did vs the actual outcome?

I'm not answering your hypothetical scenario. My concern is that you are justifying the deaths of individuals based on a perceived, non-imminent threat. While Hamas combatants pose a clear and immediate danger, the same cannot be said for Palestinian civilians, especially children. Your argument seems to imply that these children are destined to become future Hitlers, which you use to rationalize the kind of decision you'd entertain in a time-travel scenario. Why else would you ask if I’d kill the infant, in what appears to be an attempt to persuade me to support the killing of Palestinian children?

We apply the imminent threat standard because you're expected to go to the police otherwise. Neither the police nor nations work on that basis, though, because there's nobody to go to.

As for the scenario--I was simply presenting a situation where killing one would save millions. And, as always happens, the hard question is not answered.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Let me clarify: my comment wasn't intended to answer your question because your question doesn't address my argument. You're asking if I would kill Hitler as a child to save millions of lives, and my answer would be yes—but only under specific conditions. I asked whether I’d retain the memory of who that baby became because neither you nor I can predict what Palestinian children will grow up to do. There's a significant difference between a scenario where there's concrete proof that a child's death would save lives and one based on a utilitarian justification that sacrifices innocent lives without certainty. That seems pretty counterproductive to saving lives, if you ask me. Based on your arguments, it appears you don't value their lives at all so I'm talking to the wind.

 

[Gospel]

You are failing to do so because you are considering anything they do in self defense to be unacceptable.

You're saying my endorsement of Israel's aim to eliminate Hamas means I actually disapprove of it? I don't follow your logic.

No, you want to see Hamas gone. You just aren't considering what is actually going on there and are playing right into their hand. By far the most powerful weapon Hamas has is it's own dead civilians--but it only works if you let it work.

There you go again, twisting my arguments. I’ve been specifically addressing the statements made by you and DrZoidberg that equate all Palestinians to Hamas, yet you respond as if I’m criticizing Israel. This is exactly the kind of disingenuous bullshit I’m talking about. It’s the same infuriating tactic you pull every time, and it’s absolutely maddening.

 

[Bomb#20]

And here's more of the problem. We understand your position--it's just we are following it to it's logical conclusion and you are refusing to look at said conclusion. In logic terms:

You say p.
We say p->q.
Thus we say you also say q.

Um, don't do that. In logic terms,

​

You say p.​

We say p->q.​

Thus we say you also say q.​

​

is a fallacy.

If p->q and q is false, p is false. If p->q, that's the same thing as ~q->~p. So if you have a good case that p->q and a good case that q is false, then you can construct a good case that p is false. So say "You say p, and here's why p is false." and present that case. When you say that, you'll be right. When you say "You also say q.", you're wrong, because he didn't also say q. Your discussion will go a lot better for both of you if you take this advice.

Q isn't false, it's a matter of whether we consider q good or bad. Let's try a comparison: p = unprotected sex, q = babies. If you have unprotected sex expect babies.

And?

​

You say unprotected sex is good.​

We say unprotected sex->babies.​

Thus we say you also say babies are good.​

​

is still a fallacy. Don't say "You say babies are good" to anybody who doesn't say babies are good. Say "Babies aren't good; unprotected sex->babies; therefore unprotected sex isn't good." That way you don't render your own argument obviously wrong, and that way you don't push the other guy to focus on how dickish putting words in his mouth is and rightly see the whole sex/baby thing as less important than the whole putting words in his mouth thing.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.

A gif in the wiki article about the strike in question (that he posted, mind you) clearly shows a secondary explosion.

Could be the bomb struck in one corner of the building destroying that section of the building and the energy from the explosion forced its way down corridor(s) of the remainder of the building and possibly through closed doors and out some window(s) milliseconds later. Couldn't it? Concrete walls and wooden doors might make this scenario possible.
I guess we all see what we want to see.

 

[Arctish]

I have been paying attentionto this thread. You have said that Hamas should not be a part of any Gazan future but you have never given any practical, realistic, achievable ways or means to achieve that aim. Unless there was a single post that I missed along the way.

It was multiple posts.

The simple, practical, and pragmatic approach is to remember the lessons of history: punishing Germany at the end of WWI radicalized the German population and led directly to WWII, while the Marshall Plan at the end of that war brought about peace, stability, and prosperity for the region. We have no reason to think the same won't hold true for the Middle East, only racist nonsense about the character of Semitic people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

How many lives on both sides of WWII could have been saved, if only the Marshall Plan had begun in 1944 instead of 1948! But the Allies just kept on shooting and bombing Germans, no doubt because Americans believed racist nonsense about the character of German people being unsuited for sharing and co-existence.

Did you miss the point I was making, or are you trying to drag the conversation away from it?

If Israelis want the Gazan Palestinians to disavow violence and choose to pursue peaceful negotiations and reconciliation with Israel then they should ensure that the PA's efforts to do just that result in positive things for Palestinians in the West Bank. Things like recognizing the Right of the indigenous people of Palestine to remain in their homeland and participate in the government that rules over it regardless of their religious beliefs. Also, their government receiving royalties on the natural resources being extracted from their land, like what happens in nearly every other country in the world. And being able to enforce their laws within their borders, and being able to receive assistance (without imperiling their sovereignty) when confronted with criminal gangs and terrorist organizations beyond their ability to combat.

It's easy to radicalize people enduring grinding poverty, especially when there is a government or organizations that made them poor and continues to take everything of value they still have. It's much more difficult to get prosperous people living peaceful lives to take the inherent risk of upsetting the current order, even if they dislike their government and their neighbors.

 

[Arctish]

I'm not finding what I was after so I'll go from memory on it. They dropped a bomb on a commander and it detonated a bunch of explosives on the ground.

A gif in the wiki article about the strike in question (that he posted, mind you) clearly shows a secondary explosion.

Could be the bomb struck in one corner of the building destroying that section of the building and the energy from the explosion forced its way down corridor(s) of the remainder of the building and possibly through closed doors and out some window(s) milliseconds later. Couldn't it? Concrete walls and wooden doors might make this scenario possible.
I guess we all see what we want to see.

I thought it was determined that the secondary explosions came from tanks of propane being used for heating and cooking.

Who did the investigation, and where is their report?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You say Israel can't bomb children in self defense. That means that Hamas is absolutely immune from any form of area attack, they can walk right over Israel and accomplish their goal of genocide. Despite all your protests that you don't support Hamas you are taking the position that stopping them is immoral.

The idea that refraining from bombing children means you can’t confront or defeat an enemy is not only absurd,it’s downright lazy. No one is suggesting that Hamas should get a free pass to commit atrocities. The focus is on employing military tactics that don’t involve the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, especially children.

Realistically, Hamas has the ability to ensure said confrontations result in civilian deaths.

Saying no civilian deaths is saying no defense.

Even the Israeli government isn’t approaching this war in the same way you, DrZoidberg, and TomC (via pathetic like button) are yapping about. Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has spoken about avoiding civilian casualties and his goal of removing Hamas to pave the way for Palestinians to return and govern themselves. Your, DrZoidbergs and TomC's rhetoric, on the other hand, is inflammatory and completely misrepresents both Israel’s stance and my own arguments.

And you are ascribing a false position to us. We don't like civilian casualties--it's just we don't like letting Hamas commit genocide even more.

I never demanded a casualty-free war, a ludicrous expectation no sane person holds. My call for caution, echoed even by the IDF's own stated operational guidelines, was a direct rebuke to the barbaric rhetoric that paints every Palestinian as a legitimate target, conflating them with Hamas. This poisonous narrative, which you yourself seem eager to defend, spits in the face of the very principles Israel purports to uphold. Let's be clear: I'm not inventing this stance; you've actively championed it.

IDF is being cautious. They’re cautious to the extreme. Your demand that they are more cautious is absurd. How could Israel be more cautious than now?

Stop your disingenuous attempts to twist my words. My critique of the appalling rhetoric spewed by DrZoidberg and yourself is precisely that—a critique of your rhetoric. It is not, and never has been, an attack on Israel or the Jewish people as a whole. Your blatant conflation of these distinct entities is a cheap and intellectually bankrupt tactic designed to silence legitimate criticism. I will not be deterred by such transparently manipulative maneuvers.

I base my accusations of you on double standards and absurd demands on Israel while giving Hamas a free pass to endanger civilian lives.

 

[Gospel]

I'm just curious, if Israel was to stop Hamas, what method would be better, and less traumatic for the Palestinian people, than what is being done now? Negotiating with them is a waste of time. The fact that they keep using the Palestinian people as human shields, proves that the sooner they're gone the better. Backing off is just encouraging Hamas to keep using cilivilians as human shields. In spite of this Israel is going to extreme lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualities. If Hamas uses refugee camps as a rocket staging bases, Israel will hit back. Anything else would be suicide for Israel.

I find the Hamas apologetics in this thread saddening. It's so calous.

This perspective makes far more sense than the rhetoric suggesting that all Palestinians deserve consequences simply because some voted for Hamas. I fully support this approach. What I can't support is when people fail to distinguish between Hamas as an organization and the Palestinian individuals who voted for or against them.

DrZoidberg, above is the exact moment our discussion derailed into your unfounded antisemitic accusation campaign . From the start, I’ve fully supported your accurate points about Hamas. My only issue has been your tendency to unjustly hold all Palestinians responsible for Hamas’s actions. Now, you and Loren have perversely twisted that critique into critique on Israel, which is a blatant misrepresentation. Cut the shit already.

 

[Gospel]

IDF is being cautious. They’re cautious to the extreme. Your demand that they are more cautious is absurd. How could Israel be more cautious than now?

Once again, I haven’t made the demands you claim I'm making. My only issue has been with people treating the casualties as if their deaths were deserved. It’s literally right there in the quote for you to see.

I never demanded a casualty-free war, a ludicrous expectation no sane person holds. My call for caution, echoed even by the IDF's own stated operational guidelines, was a direct rebuke to the barbaric rhetoric that paints every Palestinian as a legitimate target, conflating them with Hamas.

It’s as if you’re not even reading what I write and are just slapping 'antisemite' labels on everything I say.